1724

It definitely looked different if it was an issue, I guess I didn’t realize it still said “refresh”.

There was some text about it needing to be refreshed. Which is kind of weird since it was still linked, but Total War Access has always been weird and terrible, so I’ll take this less terrible version any day of the week.

1725

For those who would rather listen than read, though it’s so big he mostly skims stuff.

1726

Ahh, the software archaeology stage of the software lifecycle.

I bet they try and remove the anti-player bias and the AI refuses to do anything at all, as it was motivated only by its eternal and absolute hatred for the player.

1727

About 475 with WH2 and about 365 (Which is a lot more than I thought) with WH3.

Those AI improvements are encouraging. We will truly see once the anti-player bias fix is in.

1728

Some modders have played around with it and anti-player bias actually tended to make the AI worse at playing the game a lot of the time. But the real big issue was aggression in general. An aggressive AI carves out an empire for itself and becomes a power. A passive AI has a single province and gets rolled over once you encounter them.

It’s a weird balancing act. Initially the bias was super low and the AI just sat there and did nothing. Then it was higher and the AI killed itself trying to get to the player, ignoring countless threats that crippled it at home. So far it seems better than it was previously. Grimgor came down upon me as the Chaos Dwarfs with a fury, but… it’s fucking Grimgor and I’m the Chaos Dwarfs. It would be wrong of him to do anything else imo. But beyond him I’ve really mostly avoided wars. Hell I’m neighbors with Thorgrim and he hasn’t come after me yet (and he probably should), but maybe he hasn’t because he has other issues and is rightfully dealing with them instead of starting another war that will doom him.

Or maybe I’ve just gotten lucky and it all looks better than it is.

1729

I love my blunderbuss units, they just wipe out whatever comes into their range.

Feels like CA have really put some thought into how different units and abilities can work together. Like giving my lord a net spell to help offset the inaccurate mortar. There’s a big roster with lots of great units to explore.

Ofc look on Steam and everyone is down voting it because it has 3 LL not 4 and is a few dollars more than other DLC.

1730

I’ve often thought that with something like TW, they should start with a brand new engine.

1731

Anyone know a work around to a stack that can’t move or respond? My primary stack in a campaign just… stopped being able to move. After selecting, the mouse cursor doesn’t seem to recognize it as a valid movable stack, hovering over enemy stacks doesn’t show a sword (attackable icon). There’s no selection box showing the range it can move. It’s just completely stuck. Basically kills that particular campaign.

1732

Could it be that your stack(s) were hit by the “freeze armies” special overland Tzeentch ability?
That will wear off the next turn.

Otherwise it sounds like a weird bug…

1733

jam backspace on it or maybe try

edit the position, move points left, etc

1734

The AI should not be driven to kill the player such that if there is no player it does little to nothing. It should be trying to win and it is not making good decisions to further that end, that is a much bigger issue. The AI as it is, is awful.

I just started another skaven campaign with ikit claw (yet again). to see about these AI changes.
On the good side, the knights south of Sartosa did NOT declare war on me shortly after taking Sartosa (which they always did before), so there is some improvement.

On the other hand Courtaine ( the breton faction headed by that Leon dude), was losing territory to various AI factions yet Leon himself and half his armies were in the empire lands fighting me, ignoring their own lands. They could have easily crushed the orcs and beastmen who were creating havoc in their core lands, but never bothered to. All their armies were in empire land, not their own land, fighting me, and not their true enemies.

I would be OK with a very slight amount of anti-player bias, but that is the limit. If the AI can’t do anything useful without anti-player bias, then there are other major problems with it.

I am not looking for a genius AI that will kick your ass on normal, but just something that you would rate as “ok, or decent” that is good enough.

1735

I think that is a perfectly reasonable take. For a player to achieve victory, there are strategic provinces that they must take, or otherwise certain conditions to be met. I don’t see why the AI can not have a similar focus. I’m not looking for an amazing AI, but one that is goal orientated. I fully expect I’ll be shot down in flames for this, and I do realise one drawback is time to process each turn. To that end, minor factions can do what they want, and let the main factions with the LLs live up to their flavour.

As an aside, I seem to recall in Civ IV for instance the AI would go for a particular victory condition. In fact, the Mayans once even nabbed a cultural victory that came out of nowhere. They had a goal in mind and would shoot for it that would match the personality or flavour of that leader. That’s what I’d like to see in games once again.

1736

Total War series barely has any strategic AI, it is a new thing for them. Previously the most critically lauded series was Shogun Total War 2, and that one literally spawned armies in the fog of war. You had to create little units just to clear the fog of war or you’d see full stacks materialize in your back lines.

1737

It can’t be too new, given that this is the third in just the Warhammer series let alone Three Kingdoms, Atilla, etc. :)

1738

oh good point, 3 Kingdoms had a serious attempt to a strategic AI

1739

Medieval 1 had a good Strategic AI. It all went downhill with Rome 1. They have been struggling to make an AI that can handle the 3D maps for 20 years.